Goverdhan vs State of C.G. and Others

Hon''ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 19th of February, 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 128/1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh. District Kawardha (C.G.), the victim has filed this revision. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :--

Respondents 2 to 5 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 324 and 323 IPC. The case of the prosecution was that on 10.06.1999 at about 6:00 p.m. respondents 2 to 5 entered into the house of the complainant-Goverdhan (P.W. 2) and assaulted him by Tangiya and Lathies. It was further alleged that teeth bite was also given on his palm. The case of the prosecution was that as the pet dog of the complainant (P.W. 2) went inside the house of respondents 2 to 5, they became angry and attacked over the complainant (P.W. 2) by entering into his house. Goverdhan (P.W. 2-complainant), Daduwa (P.W. 3- father of the complainant) and Uma Bai (P.W. 4- wife of the complainant) were the main witnesses cited by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge did not rely on the testimonies of above witnesses and acquitted respondents 2 to 5 of the charges framed against them.

Learned Counsel for the applicant have argued that the Sessions Judge erred in law in discarding the evidence of above witnesses, therefore, the judgment vitiates.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, we have perused the records of the Sessions Case.

The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence of complainant-Goverdhan (P.W. 2) in paras 7 to 12 of the impugned judgment. The Sessions Judge has observed that there were material contradictions in his Court evidence as also dairy statement (Ex-D-1) and First Information Report (Ex-P-2). It was observed that according to this witness, initially the case was that his pet dog had entered into the house of respondents 2 to 5, therefore they attacked over him, whereas, in Court evidence he deposed that it was not his pet dog, but the incident occurred when some street dog entered into the house of respondents 2 to 5. The Sessions Judge held that according to the police papers, the incident took place in the house of the complainant (P.W. 2) as accused persons entered into his house, whereas, according to the Court evidence of complainant (P.W. 2), he was dragged to the house of accused persons and there he was assaulted. Thus place of occurrence was changed. There were other contradictions in the Court version, F.I.R. and dairy statement of the complainant (P.W. 2). The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, did not rely on the testimony of complainant (P.W. 2).

Similar was the position with the other witnesses namely Daduwa (P.W. 3) and Uma Bai (P.W. 4). There were many contradictions in their Court version and case diary statements. Daduwa (P.W. 3) is father of the complainant, and Uma Bai (P.W. 4) is wife of the complainant. The Sessions Judge therefore, did not rely on their version also, and disbelieved the entire case of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded the above grounds for disbelieving the testimonies of the above main prosecution witnesses, and by disbelieving the entire prosecution case, the impugned judgment of acquittal was passed.

The revisional power of the High Court u/s 397 read with Section 401 does not create any right in the litigant, but only conserves the power to see that justice is done and the subordinate Courts do not exceed jurisdiction or abuse their powers. The order of Lower Court ought not to be lightly set-aside unless it has entailed miscarriage of justice or where two views are possible merely because the revisional Court takes the other view. It is only in glaring cases of injustice, resulting from some violation of fundamental principle of law by the trial Court, that the High Court is empowered to set-aside the order of acquittal and direct a re-trial of the acquitted accused. The mere circumstances that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may, in the opinion of the High Court, be wrong, will not justify setting aside the acquittal and directing re-trial. The revisional Court is entitled to reverse the finding only when it reaches to the conclusion that finding of the Trial Court is perverse and the jurisdiction cannot be invoked lightly. Even in the cases where it is possible to take two views on the same matter then in the ordinary course the view taken by the Court below should not be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction.

We have examined the entire evidence available on record. We do not find present to be a case in which the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge can be said to be perverse. We find that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire evidence on record, and then the finding of acquittal of respondents 2 to 5 was recorded. It is a case in which the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be one of the possible views which could have been taken after appreciation of the entire evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has also not eliminated any material out of consideration while recording the above findings. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the revision petition. The petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.